Reform panel to vote on changes to Alabama ethics law

Updated 3 weeks ago; Posted 5 mos ago

The Alabama Code of Ethics Clarification and Reform Commission meets on Sept. 20, 2018, at the attorney general's office in Montgomery. The commission will vote on possible recommendations to the Legislature at its next meeting on Oct. 18. (Mike Cason/mcason@al.com)

A commission appointed to help clarify the Alabama ethics law is moving closer to making recommendations to the Legislature.

The Alabama Code of Ethics Clarification and Reform Commission will vote on proposals at its next meeting in October.

The proposals include changes to a definition cited as a potential cause of uncertainty for the vast number of people covered by the ethics law.

The current law defines the term "principal" as a business or person who employs a lobbyist. That has raised a question: Which individual employees and board members of a business that hires a lobbyist are considered principals?

The definition is important because the ethics law places restrictions on principals like it does on lobbyists, such as prohibitions on giving money or gifts to public officials. Violations of the law can carry felony penalties.

The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals recommended that the Legislature clarify the definition in its ruling in August upholding 11 of 12 felony ethics convictions against former House Speaker Mike Hubbard. The court said it believed the law was applied correctly in Hubbard's case but that it could envision other cases where the definition was problematic.

The 23-member commission met for about two and a half hours today and discussed the definition and other issues, including limits on what lobbyists can spend on a meal for public officials.

Commission members agreed to vote on specific proposals at their next meeting, set for Oct. 18. They will pick between two new definitions of principal.

A definition drafted by a subcommittee of the reform commission says the term includes an employee or board member who individually has the authority to fire or direct the company's lobbyist. An employee or association member with no involvement in lobbying activities would not be a principal.

Jefferson County Circuit Judge Joseph Boohaker, a commission member, proposed an amended version of that definition.

Ethics Commission Executive Director Tom Albritton said he believes both versions address the concern raised by the Court of Criminal Appeals.

"Both definitions encompass the idea that the Court of Criminal Appeals noted, which is that there are individuals within a business that should be responsible. And so the discussion really has centered around how do we define who those individuals are," Albritton said.

Albritton said getting the definition right is important to prevent unintentional violations involving employees who have no connection with lobbying.

Albritton and Attorney General Steve Marshal are co-chairmen of the commission, which includes legislators, prosecutors, lawyers, lobbyists, a judge, representatives of county and city officials and others. The Legislature created the commission last year. The goal is to recommend changes for the 2019 legislative session, which starts in March.

Current law allows lobbyists to buy meals for public officials valued at up to $25 or an aggregate total of $150 in a year. The proposal that will be up for a vote next month leaves that allowance in place.

Commission members debated whether it would be better to eliminate that allowance and flatly prohibit lobbyists from buying meals for public officials.

Boohaker said the public would better understand a flat ban.

"Nobody buys me lunch and everybody knows that they are not to buy me lunch," Boohaker said.

Others said the $25 allowance was reasonable and low enough that it shouldn't cause concerns about undue influence.